Secession

[White Trash]

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.

For the sake of the argument, let's accept this premise: how then would the thirty-five states (i.e. everyone outside the original 13 colonies, Texas, and Vermont) that never existed as sovereign entities, but were in fact formed from federal territory by act of federal legislation? If, say, Virginia were to secede from the Union, would she take with her the lands she ceded to the central government in 1781? Does this right only apply to states (and if so, why), or can I unilaterally declare my house the independent People's Republic of Trumansylvania if I so choose?

Considering that those states that have never existed as sovereign entities still had to ratify a state constitution and conducted a referendum on statehood, they still possess some level of sovereignty and still made the conscious decision to voluntarily join the federal union. And this right applies uniquely to state because it is the state government that underwent this process to bind itself to the federal government. Counties and municipal governments do no such thing.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.

For the sake of the argument, let's accept this premise: how then would the thirty-five states (i.e. everyone outside the original 13 colonies, Texas, and Vermont) that never existed as sovereign entities, but were in fact formed from federal territory by act of federal legislation? If, say, Virginia were to secede from the Union, would she take with her the lands she ceded to the central government in 1781? Does this right only apply to states (and if so, why), or can I unilaterally declare my house the independent People's Republic of Trumansylvania if I so choose?

Considering that those states that have never existed as sovereign entities still had to ratify a state constitution and conducted a referendum on statehood, they still possess some level of sovereignty and still made the conscious decision to voluntarily join the federal union. And this right applies uniquely to state because it is the state government that underwent this process to bind itself to the federal government. Counties and municipal governments do no such thing.

In that case, do counties and municipalities have the right to secede from their respective states?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Literal “Balkanization” presumably came from some sort of actual ethnic identity. I shudder to contemplate why anyone should promote the strengthening of political barriers through actual borders. Government exists to let man live in common. If any disunion is to occur in an actual democracy, it ought to be mutual.

[White Trash]

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.

For the sake of the argument, let's accept this premise: how then would the thirty-five states (i.e. everyone outside the original 13 colonies, Texas, and Vermont) that never existed as sovereign entities, but were in fact formed from federal territory by act of federal legislation? If, say, Virginia were to secede from the Union, would she take with her the lands she ceded to the central government in 1781? Does this right only apply to states (and if so, why), or can I unilaterally declare my house the independent People's Republic of Trumansylvania if I so choose?

Considering that those states that have never existed as sovereign entities still had to ratify a state constitution and conducted a referendum on statehood, they still possess some level of sovereignty and still made the conscious decision to voluntarily join the federal union. And this right applies uniquely to state because it is the state government that underwent this process to bind itself to the federal government. Counties and municipal governments do no such thing.

In that case, do counties and municipalities have the right to secede from their respective states?

The counties do not draft a constitution and hold a referendum to join the state, so no.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Were any of the 27 yes voters on question 1 supporters of the Confederate States seceding?

I think they had a legal right to do so, although I think it was also economically stupid to do so.

So yes to could, no to should.

[White Trash]

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.

For the sake of the argument, let's accept this premise: how then would the thirty-five states (i.e. everyone outside the original 13 colonies, Texas, and Vermont) that never existed as sovereign entities, but were in fact formed from federal territory by act of federal legislation? If, say, Virginia were to secede from the Union, would she take with her the lands she ceded to the central government in 1781? Does this right only apply to states (and if so, why), or can I unilaterally declare my house the independent People's Republic of Trumansylvania if I so choose?

Considering that those states that have never existed as sovereign entities still had to ratify a state constitution and conducted a referendum on statehood, they still possess some level of sovereignty and still made the conscious decision to voluntarily join the federal union. And this right applies uniquely to state because it is the state government that underwent this process to bind itself to the federal government. Counties and municipal governments do no such thing.

In that case, do counties and municipalities have the right to secede from their respective states?

The counties do not draft a constitution and hold a referendum to join the state, so no.

But what if the county in question runs the risk of seeing slavery outlawed owing to the antislavery votes of the rest of the state? :’(

While the county may have legitimate grievances against the state on a particular issue, counties are created for the sole purpose of being administrative districts of a state. They possess no sovereignty except that which is granted to them by the state. This different from the relationship that states and the federal government have as states have powers that exist entirely independent of the federal government.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Sovereign entities that join together in a political union voluntarily should have a right to leave said union if so desired.

For the sake of the argument, let's accept this premise: how then would the thirty-five states (i.e. everyone outside the original 13 colonies, Texas, and Vermont) that never existed as sovereign entities, but were in fact formed from federal territory by act of federal legislation? If, say, Virginia were to secede from the Union, would she take with her the lands she ceded to the central government in 1781? Does this right only apply to states (and if so, why), or can I unilaterally declare my house the independent People's Republic of Trumansylvania if I so choose?

Considering that those states that have never existed as sovereign entities still had to ratify a state constitution and conducted a referendum on statehood, they still possess some level of sovereignty and still made the conscious decision to voluntarily join the federal union. And this right applies uniquely to state because it is the state government that underwent this process to bind itself to the federal government. Counties and municipal governments do no such thing.

In that case, do counties and municipalities have the right to secede from their respective states?

The counties do not draft a constitution and hold a referendum to join the state, so no.

That's not entirely true, though. Especially in New England, many towns were formed as result of a charter drafted by the townspeople, or by incorporation referendums in which the inhabitants voted to become a city (subject to the rights and privileges granted them by state law).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.

Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.

For that we have planes, trains, and automobiles.  We will never have utopia no matter what the government does or how the borders are drawn, but how can you maintain a stable republic where the likes of Bernie Sanders and Roy Moore share the power?

Why are we assuming that everyone can (or should) relocate to a state-turned-nation where their politics are in the majority? Even assuming an EU-style Schengen area is established in the former United States (and given the politics of immigration in places like Alabama and Texas, I'd say it's highly unlikely they would ever agree to such a system), that's just not a realistic proposition for most people. What, then, happens to the Obamacare patients in Alabama who suddenly lose their insurance when their state leaves the Union? What happens to the LGBT couple whose marriage is no longer legally recognized? This isn't "utopia" we're talking about, but we're all Americans and we have an obligation to look out for the rights and well being of our fellow citizens. It seems rather callous to abandon these people to the mercy of their states simply to avoid the difficulties of representative democracy in a pluralistic society.

As far as marriage rights and healthcare are concerned, presumably the liberal-leaning states would quickly adopt same-sex marriage and have an easier time transitioning to a better single or multi-payer healthcare system without resistance from the X number of states that only elect people who oppose those things, as well as environmental protection, abortion rights, voting rights, a living wage, etc.  Representative democracy only works if the citizenry shares some core values.  Polarization doesn't work in anybody's favor, especially in the United States which is arguably more politically polarized than it's been since the 1860s.  When you try to force national unity on an unwilling populace, tribalism becomes inevitable.  We are left with a no-win situation.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I do believe that the United States is ripe for a split/secession movement along some lines so that, ideally, conservative and liberal Americans can "co-exist" without having the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them after every election.

Of course, liberals in conservative secessionist states and conservatives in liberal secessionist states would still have "the other side's policies forcibly imposed upon them" — just by a government closer to home. Personally, I'm not particularly eager to see how the LGBTQ+ community would fare in the independent Republic of Alabama.

For that we have planes, trains, and automobiles.  We will never have utopia no matter what the government does or how the borders are drawn, but how can you maintain a stable republic where the likes of Bernie Sanders and Roy Moore share the power?

Why are we assuming that everyone can (or should) relocate to a state-turned-nation where their politics are in the majority? Even assuming an EU-style Schengen area is established in the former United States (and given the politics of immigration in places like Alabama and Texas, I'd say it's highly unlikely they would ever agree to such a system), that's just not a realistic proposition for most people. What, then, happens to the Obamacare patients in Alabama who suddenly lose their insurance when their state leaves the Union? What happens to the LGBT couple whose marriage is no longer legally recognized? This isn't "utopia" we're talking about, but we're all Americans and we have an obligation to look out for the rights and well being of our fellow citizens. It seems rather callous to abandon these people to the mercy of their states simply to avoid the difficulties of representative democracy in a pluralistic society.

As far as marriage rights and healthcare are concerned, presumably the liberal-leaning states would quickly adopt same-sex marriage and have an easier time transitioning to a better single or multi-payer healthcare system without resistance from the X number of states that only elect people who oppose those things, as well as environmental protection, abortion rights, voting rights, a living wage, etc.  Representative democracy only works if the citizenry shares some core values.  Polarization doesn't work in anybody's favor, especially in the United States which is arguably more politically polarized than it's been since the 1860s.  When you try to force national unity on an unwilling populace, tribalism becomes inevitable.  We are left with a no-win situation.

My issue is, what about the people who don't live in those states — do we abandon them to their reactionary neighbors? Speaking from my personal situation, the supremacy clause is the only reason my family can afford to buy health insurance; an independent Indiana is not likely to continue those policies, let alone adopt single payer, so in the event that my state were to secede, I'd face a choice of becoming a political refugee (and that's assuming liberal America lets me into the country) or taking my chances with whatever garbage system Indiana cooks up. From my perspective, at least, union is not a "no-win situation" — it's the surest safeguard of my safety and happiness. Frankly, I'm not willing to be thrown under the bus so that liberals in Vermont don't have to argue with Mitch McConnell about tax policy.

1. Yes, every person has the right to freedom and this includes freedom of dismissing the current government and declaring secession.

Every person? Presumably, you mean a majority of persons in a particular constituency — but how do we decide what the relevant basic unit of political organization is? Most in this thread seem to assume that the states are the districts that most accurately represent the basic communities that compose the present union; I would argue that this is an antiquated and unrepresentative view of how American political life is actually organized in the modern era, and that the basic unit of political organization is, as Aristotle said, the polis. I don't see why voters in Chicago should be able to take southern Illinois out of the union against their will, any more than Indiana should be able to take New York out of the union.

[Mr. Reactionary]

My issue is, what about the people who don't live in those states — do we abandon them to their reactionary neighbors?

Hey. Im quiet, don't snoop, and move my trashcans the same day as pickup. I'm a perfectly fine neighbor.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My issue is, what about the people who don't live in those states — do we abandon them to their reactionary neighbors?

Hey. Im quiet, don't snoop, and move my trashcans the same day as pickup. I'm a perfectly fine neighbor.

LOL, fair enough.

[brucejoel99]

No/Yes (given that the first is a question about general principles and the latter is about remote hypotheticals)

[HillGoose]

1. No
2. No

If any state tries to secede from the USA, the military needs to go in and kill all the god damn secessionists and their allies. If we lose any state, we lose power. If states start leaving the Union, the Russkies are gonna try to make a move, and we can't let them win.

I would have felt differently if I had lived in TN in 1861. I guarantee I would have supported secession, but I would have been wrong. The Union needs to be as powerful as we possibly can be so that we can oppose the Russkies, Islamists, and red Chinese.

#LetsRoll

[Mr. Reactionary]

1. No
2. No

If any state tries to secede from the USA, the military needs to go in and kill all the god damn secessionists and their allies. If we lose any state, we lose power. If states start leaving the Union, the Russkies are gonna try to make a move, and we can't let them win.

I would have felt differently if I had lived in TN in 1861. I guarantee I would have supported secession, but I would have been wrong. The Union needs to be as powerful as we possibly can be so that we can oppose the Russkies, Islamists, and red Chinese.

#LetsRoll

Damn. And I thought Janet Reno died.

[vanguard96]

The idea of the US was formed based on nullification if any of the states considered that being a member was not worth considering that they could go their own way rather than be dragged down together into destructive wars.

I suppose if it got really bad rather than having martial law, mass seizures of property like in Venezuela, or a full-on civil war that secession would be acceptable alternative. We are very far from that point.

Instead though I'd like to think federalism and increased regional autonomy and decentralization of power would be more beneficial. This would allow for the US to stay as one country but allow 320+ million people live their own lives in a more prosperous way rather than under an increasingly restrictive system which is limiting opportunities.

In some ways the current system with the states having a good deal of power relative to each other has some strong negative aspects like separate and non-reciprocal licensing - sometimes by non-government groups such as the AMA or the Bar Associations which make it more difficult for people to vote with their feet and leave a place with repressive laws. I think with a 'hard' secession reciprocity would be even worse in that case and people's options could be even more limited.

What makes it tough nowadays is that so-many people are playing a power politics game particularly the 2 mainstream parties and even moreso for the identity politics junkies of the far right and far left. So it's an all-or-nothing, zero-sum game and no one wants to yield an inch on anything. This is in spite of the co-operative and collaborative nature of both society and the economy that can be often times mutually beneficial.

Many anarchist / right libertarians support the separatist movements in Catalonia and Scotland on principle based on self-determination even though they realize that the parties that want it most will not be classical liberals/libertarians. If we are holding out for that kind of system it will never ever come to fruition.

It's a different story on the ground in say Barcelona as a non-leftist and a person would not want to cede liberties over to people who would make things worse for them personally even though maybe 60% of the people want it. I suppose it would be the same thing for the people in Austin for instance regarding a Tex-it or in rural conservative areas of the Golden State in the event of Cal-exit. In that case I think it is better to have a so-called 'soft-secession' whereby there is a little more independence locally where your vote can make a difference but the overriding increase of federal power via interstate commerce and general welfare clause and the mission creep of the regulatory and security state can be dialed back as the current growth is unsustainable when it is done on so many fronts both here in the US and abroad.

Of course neither side would likely accept that and would not want to sacrifice their special entitlements so we have the current impasse and the looming culture wars.

[HillGoose]

1. No
2. No

If any state tries to secede from the USA, the military needs to go in and kill all the god damn secessionists and their allies. If we lose any state, we lose power. If states start leaving the Union, the Russkies are gonna try to make a move, and we can't let them win.

I would have felt differently if I had lived in TN in 1861. I guarantee I would have supported secession, but I would have been wrong. The Union needs to be as powerful as we possibly can be so that we can oppose the Russkies, Islamists, and red Chinese.

#LetsRoll

Damn. And I thought Janet Reno died.

hate Reno, instead of antagonizing Cuba like she should have, she sent Elian Gonzalez back to appease that damn socialist state.

do you think America should allow ourselves to split to make it easier for the Russkies, Red Chinese, and Islamists to take over?

[Dr. MB]

1. No
2. No

If any state tries to secede from the USA, the military needs to go in and kill all the god damn secessionists and their allies. If we lose any state, we lose power. If states start leaving the Union, the Russkies are gonna try to make a move, and we can't let them win.

I would have felt differently if I had lived in TN in 1861. I guarantee I would have supported secession, but I would have been wrong. The Union needs to be as powerful as we possibly can be so that we can oppose the Russkies, Islamists, and red Chinese.

#LetsRoll

Damn. And I thought Janet Reno died.

hate Reno, instead of antagonizing Cuba like she should have, she sent Elian Gonzalez back to appease that damn socialist state.

do you think America should allow ourselves to split to make it easier for the Russkies, Red Chinese, and Islamists to take over?

Even if the U.S. split into 50 states it's not like the remaining powers would go into a frenzy.

[Mr. Reactionary]

1. No
2. No

If any state tries to secede from the USA, the military needs to go in and kill all the god damn secessionists and their allies. If we lose any state, we lose power. If states start leaving the Union, the Russkies are gonna try to make a move, and we can't let them win.

I would have felt differently if I had lived in TN in 1861. I guarantee I would have supported secession, but I would have been wrong. The Union needs to be as powerful as we possibly can be so that we can oppose the Russkies, Islamists, and red Chinese.

#LetsRoll

Damn. And I thought Janet Reno died.

hate Reno, instead of antagonizing Cuba like she should have, she sent Elian Gonzalez back to appease that damn socialist state.

do you think America should allow ourselves to split to make it easier for the Russkies, Red Chinese, and Islamists to take over?

I don't see how suspending posse comitatus and murdering a boatload of political opponents protects our interests. You claim national unity out of one corner of your mouth while gleefully calling for mass executions of your supposed countrymen out of the other. What's the point in being top dog if we have to abandon moral decency to stay that way?

Its about as hypocritical as the lefty opponents of police violence demanding law enforcement burn alive those Bundy kooks in Oregon for illegal camping.

[thumb21]

Yes and No

While I don't support secessionism and dividing countries up for the sake of it, I support democracy and self determination.

[jaichind]

Question 1 Yes. But it cannot be unilateral. It must be negotiated with the Federal government which I assign a veto over such a succession.   Question 2. No.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

1. Yes
2. No, although I would support certain other states leaving while PA stays.

[politicallefty]

Were any of the 27 yes voters on question 1 supporters of the Confederate States seceding?

From a personal standpoint, I think the right of independence and self-determination of a people can only be determined with a fully free and fair election. If independence is based upon the subjugation and enslavement of an entire class of people, it should not be recognized. And of course, it was the Confederacy that fired upon the United States, not the other way around.

[Person Man]

In theory it should be never and absolutely not but at a certain point, there might be a time to reevaluate this if this country just becomes two or three countries with one of them forcibly occupying the others. For example, if Roy Moore wins, it will be because he is the ambassador to his ethnic population instead of a US senator.